Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 3:25 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm not very comfortable about the idea of having the postmaster set
>> child processes' latches ... that doesn't sound terribly safe from the
>> standpoint of not allowing the postmaster to mess with shared memory
>> state that could cause it to block or crash. If we already do that
>> elsewhere, then OK, but I don't think we do.
> It should be unnecessary anyway. We changed it a while back to make
> any SIGUSR1 set the latch ....
Hmm, so the postmaster could send SIGUSR1 without setting any particular
pmsignal reason? Yeah, I suppose that could work. Or we could recast
this as being a new pmsignal reason.
regards, tom lane
